That's arguable. But even without formal instruction just about everything known is out there for anyone. All it takes is some initiative and curiosity. The problem is those who have no knowledge of an issue but think they can effectively argue with those who do.
There are a very few subjects that I feel knowledgeable enough in to have a valid opinion. I wouldn't get into an argument about flying large jets with an airline captain. I wouldn't get into an argument about differential equations with my company's programmer (he has two masters, one in math and one in physics). I wouldn't get into an argument about speciation with Steingar. I wouldn't get into an argument about magnetos with my A&P. But if I want to learn something about any of those, given enough time, I could easily find the information and study it.
Sorry, I plead ignorance here. I'm Just a Bill?? Conjunction Junction? I'm guessing these are some sort of teaching programs?
Those items are from a series of TV spots run on Saturday mornings amongst the cartoons in the 70's(? Could be the 60's. I remember both, but not as well as I used to.) They were education spots from the "Schoolhouse Rock" series. They covered english grammar, some basic civics, etc. Commercial length and targeted to those watching the cartoons. Here's I'm Just a Bill (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0&spfreload=10). Search for Schoolhouse Rock on youtube.
break.
Yes, most everything you could possibly want to know is available, but there is a HUGE, and I do mean HUGE, noise to signal ratio. The barrier to publication went to nearly 0 on the internet and the rational ability to perceive and discriminate among 1) real data, 2) vested interest, 3) unconscious bias is very low. I think general cynicism is actually a defense against so much bad information. Not a good one, but better than swallowing everything.
And bad information comes from both intentional and unintentional sources.
Advertising? Definitely vested interest and subject to the ethics of the company, producer, advertising agency, etc.
News? Subject to both conscious ("Let's sensationalize this to get the viewers at 11!") and unconscious ("We run this story, it more important than that story.") bias. In addition, most of the journalists, even with the best intentions, are largely ignorant of the subjects under discussion. Seen any good aviation stories lately?
And most of us do not either have access to, or understanding of the in depth papers published on scientific subjects. I cringe at what I read in the headline obsessed internet news world about the latest scientific study to catch somebody's eye: "Chocolate is Better for You than Broccoli". Read the article and you
might find out that chocolate has more zinc than broccoli which helps with some particular health issue. Or you may not unless you track down the study, pay for access because the journal actually has to pay it's bills somehow, and then read and digest the real paper (which hopefully has enough of the data in it to be able to judge the methodology).
Scientists (as any other largish group of people) have those with good ethics, and not so good. As well as those with talent & skill, and those who are not so much. Kind of like pilots. And journalists. And engineers. And wait staff. And etc.
Most of the information we have access to is garbage. And unless it's a field we know something about, we have very little way to sift the wheat from the chaff. That's what lowering the barrier to entry has done to "publishing".
So while you're statement that there is more information available to people today is true, it is also true that it is buried in more trash than ever before as well. And in most areas, we are ill equipped to tell the difference.
John
